JOURNAL REVIEW
Lloyd Askew
EDU 713
October 12, 2011
Lester, J., & Evans, K. (2009). Instructors' experiences of collaboratively teaching: building something bigger. International of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 373-382. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
Introduction Assertion by the researcher authors of this peer- reviewed journal contends that building something bigger through collaborative teaching brings to question the value of teaching in isolation due to limited interactions among colleagues. As a result of existing research which emphasizes the importance of collaboration, Lester and Evans (2009) wanted to explore the characteristics of collaboration through their collaborative teaching experience at a much deeper level. According to the literature, despite potential challenges that can occur through the various approaches to team teaching, implementation of its practice can produce enormous learning advantages for students and instructors (Beck, 2006). On the other hand, due to strong opposition of team teaching models in other studies mentioned in the literature where different responsibilities were dispersed among team members, the researchers of this particular study considered advocating on behalf of a more collaborative approach similar to Brookfield’s (2006) philosophy which argues that genuine team teaching requires joint, collaborative planning, teaching, and evaluating among all participants. More important, the culminating belief of team teaching as a “commitment to the socially constructed nature of knowledge” (Miller, 1994) is what set the stage for these researchers to further their investigation into the “true” essence of collaborative teaching.
Project Examination of the collaborative teaching experience took place in a senior level educational course for pre-service teachers at the University of Tennessee. The primary participants and researchers of the study were two female graduate teaching assistants attending this institution of higher learning as doctoral students in the department of Educational Psychology and Counseling. In conjunction with additional assignments during one academic semester (five month period) the researchers volunteered to collaborate and teach a course as a way of examining their own experience as team teachers using a methodical and analytical research format.
Method The method used to understand and examine collaborative teaching by the two graduate assistants was noted as Phenomenology. Basically, this type of method investigated the essence of what actually happened during the participant’s collaborative teaching experience. Furthermore, not only did the phenomenological method serve to present the structure of the experience, but was instrumental in developing common, emergent themes as a result of the responses that were documented from two ninety minute interviews. Administered by a senior member of the phenomenological research team, the interviews were designed to collect anecdotal data in the form of open-ended questions. Moreover, throughout the interviewing process, the team teachers were given subsequent questions to extract more details from their experience, provide examples related to the experience, and to clarify previously misunderstood information. Because of the potential biases that could have resulted from the interviewee’s prior experiences with co-teaching, five additional, trained research team members along with a senior faculty member were included to collect, analyze the anecdotal data, and to eliminate potential biases as well. As a result of analyzing responses provided by the interviewees that not only stood out but continued to resurface, common themes were developed from the emergent findings over the course of three research team meetings.
Results After the researchers were able to provide reasoning for their ideas and support for each meaning unit Robbins (2006) within the written document, an overarching or ground theme referred to as “we did not have a manual” emerged. The meaning behind this particular theme simply implies that it was through trial and error that the team teachers came to better understand the practicalities and interpersonal communication skills involved in collaborative teaching. Additionally, this theme served as an umbrella for which the remaining five themes would fall under. For example, the first theme derived from the researcher’s acquired understanding makes reference to the “significance of time and commitment” in order to collaboratively plan and reflect. Secondly, in order for team teaching to be effective from an instructional perspective, participants must be willing to not only lead, but follow as well. Further, interpretation of theme two emphasizes the importance of a “cord of connection” between team teachers to the point that their teaching flows while at the same time, fostering their ability to work through differences. According to theme three, collaborative teaching brings its fair share of conflict, diversity, and dialogue due to different perspectives. With that having been said, “it is alright to walk away disagreeing” after team teaching. However, it is through these differences that team teachers can learn to grow personally and professionally. For maximum effectiveness of team teaching, according to theme four, the presence of each teaching partner should “push each other to reflect deeper” upon their teaching practices. It is through willingness to see other teacher’s point of views that fosters something much bigger than their individual efforts. Finally, theme five, “building something bigger,” sums the entire collaborative teaching process up by asserting that the rewards for both students and teachers are greater when knowledge is constructed together rather than individually. When human minds are changed as a result of social interactions, it allows for the emergence of new perspectives as well as enhanced learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations Despite the values of different team teaching approaches such as “serial” and “interdisciplinary” teaching mentioned in the literature from other studies, Lester and Evans (2009) concluded that in order to acquire the many benefits affordable to teachers through the experience of “true” collaborative teaching, the process must move pass sometimes teaching together to always teaching together. When teachers commit to the process, many advantages for student learning can emerge. Furthermore, through teacher engagement with this practice, students are able to view the learning environment as a community of learners (Wolf, 1994). More important, openness to embrace the growing pains that accompany collaborative teaching through direct involvement can result in increased understanding of its practice. My Thoughts Deep reflection of this study has influenced my thinking to believe that collaborative teaching can provide teachers with more opportunities for building something bigger due to its constructive nature. The literature attests to the fact that the interests of the researchers are directly correlated to their former experiences with co- teaching. Because of the researcher’s previous exposure with co- teaching, this study has the potential to captivate the attention of educators through the specific and practical information it proposes. Similarly, for teachers who are in search of learning more about what an ideal co-teaching model should look like, the research findings can serve as a valuable resource tool. Regardless of my support on behalf of this study for raising teacher awareness concerning critical components necessary for the success of collaboration and co-teaching, there are concerns about the nature of the data, sample size, and probable biases that could have occurred as a result of the researcher’s prior knowledge about the subject matter. For example, using the participant’s personal co-teaching accounts as anecdotal data does not necessarily result in proven facts. Further, unlike empirical data whose research findings are extracted from the use of much larger participating samples through observation or experiment, the data collected from the two participants in the actual co-teaching experience does not represent a wide enough sample to conclude the information as valid. Conversely, I wonder if using teachers in the research with no previous co-teaching experience would have resulted in similar or different themes from the responses (anecdotal data) provided. Connections According to Friend and Cook (2010), collaboration fosters an “awareness of community” through the sharing of different teaching perspectives, skills, and resources. Within this community, participants must be willing to commit to the process while putting aside their individual differences in order to maximize their strengths for the enhancement of student and teacher learning. The sense of community that develops through Friend and Cook’s concept of collaboration is connected to the research in a similar manner. For example, the research asserts that building something bigger is a reflection of co-constructed knowledge. What this simply means is that when educators collaborate their efforts, this approach can produce monumental gains as oppose to teaching in isolation. Again, Vygotsky (1978) reemphasizes the significance of this statement by arguing how thinking is changed through the exchange of information via social interactions. Essentially, teachers can help connect missing pieces to the co-teaching puzzle by adding and subtracting to each other’s thinking when effective planning, teaching, and evaluating are at risk. Moreover, when teachers and students construct knowledge together during the co-teaching process, students are introduced to a learning environment seen as a community of learners. Despite the individual differences of each member within the learning community, commitment to sharing in the process is the ultimate determinant to the overall success of building something bigger when collaborating.
Lloyd Askew
EDU 713
October 12, 2011
Lester, J., & Evans, K. (2009). Instructors' experiences of collaboratively teaching: building something bigger. International of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 373-382. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
Introduction
Assertion by the researcher authors of this peer- reviewed journal contends that building something bigger through collaborative teaching brings to question the value of teaching in isolation due to limited interactions among colleagues. As a result of existing research which emphasizes the importance of collaboration, Lester and Evans (2009) wanted to explore the characteristics of collaboration through their collaborative teaching experience at a much deeper level. According to the literature, despite potential challenges that can occur through the various approaches to team teaching, implementation of its practice can produce enormous learning advantages for students and instructors (Beck, 2006). On the other hand, due to strong opposition of team teaching models in other studies mentioned in the literature where different responsibilities were dispersed among team members, the researchers of this particular study considered advocating on behalf of a more collaborative approach similar to Brookfield’s (2006) philosophy which argues that genuine team teaching requires joint, collaborative planning, teaching, and evaluating among all participants. More important, the culminating belief of team teaching as a “commitment to the socially constructed nature of knowledge” (Miller, 1994) is what set the stage for these researchers to further their investigation into the “true” essence of collaborative teaching.
Project
Examination of the collaborative teaching experience took place in a senior level educational course for pre-service teachers at the University of Tennessee. The primary participants and researchers of the study were two female graduate teaching assistants attending this institution of higher learning as doctoral students in the department of Educational Psychology and Counseling. In conjunction with additional assignments during one academic semester (five month period) the researchers volunteered to collaborate and teach a course as a way of examining their own experience as team teachers using a methodical and analytical research format.
Method
The method used to understand and examine collaborative teaching by the two graduate assistants was noted as Phenomenology. Basically, this type of method investigated the essence of what actually happened during the participant’s collaborative teaching experience. Furthermore, not only did the phenomenological method serve to present the structure of the experience, but was instrumental in developing common, emergent themes as a result of the responses that were documented from two ninety minute interviews. Administered by a senior member of the phenomenological research team, the interviews were designed to collect anecdotal data in the form of open-ended questions. Moreover, throughout the interviewing process, the team teachers were given subsequent questions to extract more details from their experience, provide examples related to the experience, and to clarify previously misunderstood information. Because of the potential biases that could have resulted from the interviewee’s prior experiences with co-teaching, five additional, trained research team members along with a senior faculty member were included to collect, analyze the anecdotal data, and to eliminate potential biases as well. As a result of analyzing responses provided by the interviewees that not only stood out but continued to resurface, common themes were developed from the emergent findings over the course of three research team meetings.
Results
After the researchers were able to provide reasoning for their ideas and support for each meaning unit Robbins (2006) within the written document, an overarching or ground theme referred to as “we did not have a manual” emerged. The meaning behind this particular theme simply implies that it was through trial and error that the team teachers came to better understand the practicalities and interpersonal communication skills involved in collaborative teaching. Additionally, this theme served as an umbrella for which the remaining five themes would fall under. For example, the first theme derived from the researcher’s acquired understanding makes reference to the “significance of time and commitment” in order to collaboratively plan and reflect. Secondly, in order for team teaching to be effective from an instructional perspective, participants must be willing to not only lead, but follow as well. Further, interpretation of theme two emphasizes the importance of a “cord of connection” between team teachers to the point that their teaching flows while at the same time, fostering their ability to work through differences. According to theme three, collaborative teaching brings its fair share of conflict, diversity, and dialogue due to different perspectives. With that having been said, “it is alright to walk away disagreeing” after team teaching. However, it is through these differences that team teachers can learn to grow personally and professionally. For maximum effectiveness of team teaching, according to theme four, the presence of each teaching partner should “push each other to reflect deeper” upon their teaching practices. It is through willingness to see other teacher’s point of views that fosters something much bigger than their individual efforts. Finally, theme five, “building something bigger,” sums the entire collaborative teaching process up by asserting that the rewards for both students and teachers are greater when knowledge is constructed together rather than individually. When human minds are changed as a result of social interactions, it allows for the emergence of new perspectives as well as enhanced learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations
Despite the values of different team teaching approaches such as “serial” and “interdisciplinary” teaching mentioned in the literature from other studies, Lester and Evans (2009) concluded that in order to acquire the many benefits affordable to teachers through the experience of “true” collaborative teaching, the process must move pass sometimes teaching together to always teaching together. When teachers commit to the process, many advantages for student learning can emerge. Furthermore, through teacher engagement with this practice, students are able to view the learning environment as a community of learners (Wolf, 1994). More important, openness to embrace the growing pains that accompany collaborative teaching through direct involvement can result in increased understanding of its practice.
My Thoughts
Deep reflection of this study has influenced my thinking to believe that collaborative teaching can provide teachers with more opportunities for building something bigger due to its constructive nature. The literature attests to the fact that the interests of the researchers are directly correlated to their former experiences with co- teaching. Because of the researcher’s previous exposure with co- teaching, this study has the potential to captivate the attention of educators through the specific and practical information it proposes. Similarly, for teachers who are in search of learning more about what an ideal co-teaching model should look like, the research findings can serve as a valuable resource tool.
Regardless of my support on behalf of this study for raising teacher awareness concerning critical components necessary for the success of collaboration and co-teaching, there are concerns about the nature of the data, sample size, and probable biases that could have occurred as a result of the researcher’s prior knowledge about the subject matter. For example, using the participant’s personal co-teaching accounts as anecdotal data does not necessarily result in proven facts. Further, unlike empirical data whose research findings are extracted from the use of much larger participating samples through observation or experiment, the data collected from the two participants in the actual co-teaching experience does not represent a wide enough sample to conclude the information as valid. Conversely, I wonder if using teachers in the research with no previous co-teaching experience would have resulted in similar or different themes from the responses (anecdotal data) provided.
Connections
According to Friend and Cook (2010), collaboration fosters an “awareness of community” through the sharing of different teaching perspectives, skills, and resources. Within this community, participants must be willing to commit to the process while putting aside their individual differences in order to maximize their strengths for the enhancement of student and teacher learning. The sense of community that develops through Friend and Cook’s concept of collaboration is connected to the research in a similar manner. For example, the research asserts that building something bigger is a reflection of co-constructed knowledge. What this simply means is that when educators collaborate their efforts, this approach can produce monumental gains as oppose to teaching in isolation. Again, Vygotsky (1978) reemphasizes the significance of this statement by arguing how thinking is changed through the exchange of information via social interactions. Essentially, teachers can help connect missing pieces to the co-teaching puzzle by adding and subtracting to each other’s thinking when effective planning, teaching, and evaluating are at risk.
Moreover, when teachers and students construct knowledge together during the co-teaching process, students are introduced to a learning environment seen as a community of learners. Despite the individual differences of each member within the learning community, commitment to sharing in the process is the ultimate determinant to the overall success of building something bigger when collaborating.